Appeal No. 2004-0391
Application No. 08/724,315
In a prior decision in this case (paper number 14, page 4),
the Board reversed the obviousness rejection of claims 2 through
5 because “[t]he only mention of inventory in Cornwell is the use
of a bill of materials 48 (Figure 3) to make purchases of
materials to place in the cabinetmaker’s inventory (column 12,
lines 17 and 18),” because “Cornwell neither teaches nor would
have suggested to the skilled artisan adding a store’s inventory
of products and product availability to the products list
database used by the cabinetmaker,” and because “the
cabinetmaker’s inventory has nothing to do with the inventory
‘available at a given store location and the expected timeframe
of when more of said components will be available at said
location.’”
In the instant appeal, the examiner has added the teachings
of Johnson to the custom designed cabinet teachings of Cornwell.
With respect to the teachings of Cornwell, the examiner
acknowledges (answer, page 3) that “Cornwell does not explicitly
disclose displaying the quantity available or the expected
resupply date (backorder), nor updating the prices and quantities
within the inventory database.” According to the examiner
(answer, pages 3 and 4), Johnson discloses “a similar system for
ordering components through a network in which . . . the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007